Mugabe Interviewed in Abuja

[MOON Ki]

Even if I like what Mugabe did,  ...

I too have few problems with it---but only for late-night-TV heroics.  Past that, the number of Zimbabweans desperately seeking asylum elsewhere suggests that there are other, more "intimate" views of Uncle Bob's heroics.

Oddly enough, there are those who insist that Zim would have been just fine without this or that Western sanction.    How ironic.  To tell the West to f**k off in this and that heroic & manly way and then turn around and say that life sucks because the West has retaliated in this and that way!   

[RV Pundit]

Once you get past your stupidity..you'll understand what I post. There is nothing to debate about stolen property. The first step is to return it to the owner. Whatever else you're advocating..better farm outputs...follows.The same thing with colonialism.

Those are basic moral principles. Emotional maybe. But first return stolen land...and we can discuss how to improve productivity.

As regard to countries like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or UAE buying land...what is the problem with that....unless your think Africa regimes are illegitimate. If GOK wants to sell public land to another country...it has the legal mandate to do so...and that can never equal to somebody invading the country and taking it's best land for it's citizen.

Once we get past the emotions, the basic questions can be answered objectively.  For example: in exactly what concrete ways are the majority of Zimbabweans better off on the basis of Mugabe's land policies.    And, presumably, the question can be answered without appeal to 1960s-1970s rhetoric that had its time and place.

[RV Pundit]

The fact that Mugabe is still the president despite the economic problems there tells your Zimbwabweans understand where the problem arose. The last election especially saw opposition MDC routed completely including in parliament.

There was nothing Mugabe would have done differently if the powerful bully was determined to wreck their economy to serve as a lesson to likes to RSA with similar land problems to be careful. Zim was suppose to be an example of what the bullies can do to you if you dare them.

For 20yrs...British transferred 3m hectares of land...in few days Mugabe managed to transfer 10M hectares. South Africa is having the same exact issues...they've only transferred less than 10% of land..since they came back to power in 94 (20yrs). 5M whites not only dominate the economy in towns, they do so in mines and farms. The Africans in meantime are suffering in townships and slums..and are now killing immigrants.

Zim farmers will learn the ropes and have a more sustainable farming just like we had done in kenya for instance in tea, coffeee, horticulture and dairy.

Even if I like what Mugabe did, I can't ignore the impact on a country that was one of the most prosperous in Africa for whites, definitely.  But also for blacks, including the landless. 

Even if the Brits reneged on their end of the deal, Mugabe is ultimately responsible for the well being of Zimbabwe.  And with due respect to Omollo's argument, he did it for short term politics. 

He could have been smarter about it.  But this had never really been his goal until it was too late to regain power without something drastic.

How can anyone say it's good because now even though people are starving they have land?  Zimbabweans never used to leave their country in numbers until that happened.

[vooke]

Mugabe is a hero for the land grab. Nobody can ever take away that from him.

He turns out to be a poor manager but he is still a hero.

[Omollo]

Manager of what?

If Raila became President today and I became Lands minister with an attitude problem; Then I cleared Kawangware, Kabete, Uthiru, all the way to Kikuyu and reach the outskirts of Njamba's Limuru - areas my attitude would determine to be "unproductively used" - and "create" farms which I then invite the best Luo farmers to run with unparalleled productivity; What would you do once Raila leaves office and you have the power to make changes? Would you keep the "farms" or hand back stolen property?

Some of those so called "farms" were people's homes and ancestral graveyards and burial sites. They were not meant to be "managed" to produce food and create "wealth"!

Mugabe is a hero for the land grab. Nobody can ever take away that from him.

He turns out to be a poor manager but he is still a hero.

[RV Pundit]

When did he suddenly turned into bad manager if he was good manager all the way from 80s till the farm invasion. Zim was not messed up by Mugabe. But by Blair, George Bush and EU.

Mugabe is a hero for the land grab. Nobody can ever take away that from him.

He turns out to be a poor manager but he is still a hero.

[MOON Ki]

Once you get past your stupidity..you'll understand what I post.

Once again: please try to keep your emotions in check.

Those are basic moral principles. Emotional maybe. But first return stolen land...and we can discuss how to improve productivity.

As I have stated, I have no issue with people getting back their land.   My questions have to do with how it was done.   One consequence of how Mugabe does things is that millions of his people have now fled that very land and are refugees in other countries.  That is somewhat ironic.

As regard to countries like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or UAE buying land...what is the problem with that

What is the problem?   Read the following again, but this time also think about it.

in 2009 Saudi Arabia received its first shipment of rice produced on land it had acquired in Ethiopia while at the same time the World Food Programme was feeding 5 million Ethiopians.

Similarly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, China has acquired 7 million hectares for palm oil production and yet millions of people in the DRC are dependent on international aid for food.

[MOON Ki]

There is no way Zim could have fared any better  economically considering the British influenced US and EU to enact sanctions against them.
...
 Zim was not messed up by Mugabe. But by Blair, George Bush and EU.

The US embassy has a website on what it says are facts and myths in this sanctions matter:

"U.S. targeted sanctions apply to only 113 Zimbabwean individuals and 70 entities (mostly farms and legal entities owned by the 113 individuals)"

"Certain persons have been targeted for sanctions on the basis of their connection to the Government of Zimbabwe.  However, U.S. sanctions do not block the Government of Zimbabwe as a whole, nor do they prohibit all business with the country of Zimbabwe or transactions involving that jurisdiction.   The United States has imported good from Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe has imported goods from the United States on an ongoing basis both before and after the targeted sanctions commenced."

http://harare.usembassy.gov/sanctions_facts_myths.html

[RV Pundit]

Sanctions targeted Zimbwaweans and affected them. Whether they intended to target Mugabe and his allies..is irrelevant considering...as you said..they ended up sending 3m folks out as refugees..while Mugabe has won 3 times since then and his wife is set to win.

Targeted sanctions is moronic diplomacy. The reality is any sanctions end up affecting the poorest.

Are zimbwabwean happy with Mugabe...hell YES.

There is no way Zim could have fared any better  economically considering the British influenced US and EU to enact sanctions against them.
...
 Zim was not messed up by Mugabe. But by Blair, George Bush and EU.

The US embassy has a website on what it says are facts and myths in this sanctions matter:

"U.S. targeted sanctions apply to only 113 Zimbabwean individuals and 70 entities (mostly farms and legal entities owned by the 113 individuals)"

"Certain persons have been targeted for sanctions on the basis of their connection to the Government of Zimbabwe.  However, U.S. sanctions do not block the Government of Zimbabwe as a whole, nor do they prohibit all business with the country of Zimbabwe or transactions involving that jurisdiction.   The United States has imported good from Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe has imported goods from the United States on an ongoing basis both before and after the targeted sanctions commenced."

http://harare.usembassy.gov/sanctions_facts_myths.html

[Omollo]

MoonKi

I will leave the other issues to Pundit. I will address one: The Manner in which Mugabe took the land.

1. Britain undertook to pay the farmers for the land and Zim to repay the loan - as was the case of Kenya.
2. It went on throughout the Conservative regime. However the farmers refused to surrender the land, opting not to sell
3. The first ten years (1980 - 90) were governed by Willing Seller Dictate. Mugabe could not acquire any land compulsorily
4. At the end of the first ten years, the farmers came and pretended to be willing to surrender land. They however only gave up unproductive pieces and not those farms identified by Zim. They were bluffing and stalling for time;
5. Britain asked for an extension of the time and another 10n years were granted by Bob. He would not seize the land and would instead follow the voluntary sell and acquisition under the Lancaster agreements now extended to 2000.
6. 1997 Blair comes to power and immediately starts politics. He misrepresents the agreement saying Britain was paying to "dispossess" white people in Zimbabwe. The biggest trouble maker was Claire Short. She wrote one of the rudest letters in modern times (see below)
7. Mugabe seeing that Britain had abrogated a treaty went ahead to act as he did.
You can read the summary in the Guardian here: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/aug/11/freedomofinformation.zimbabwe

[RV Pundit]

The biatch Clare Short is anal when it come to Africa land. He came to Kericho's Unilver tea around 2004 [as Chair of Uniliver] by then Unilver Tea was considering selling the tea plantation given it wasn't making money. After Clare short visit...she reportedly said they can't sell their most beautiful asset.

6. 1997 Blair comes to power and immediately starts politics. He misrepresents the agreement saying Britain was paying to "dispossess" white people in Zimbabwe. The biggest trouble maker was Claire Short. She wrote one of the rudest letters in modern times (see below)

[RV Pundit]

Sorry that was her predecessor Baroness Lydia Chalker.

[MOON Ki]

Sanctions targeted Zimbwaweans and affected them. Whether they intended to target Mugabe and his allies..is irrelevant considering...as you said..they ended up sending 3m folks out as refugees..while Mugabe has won 3 times since then and his wife is set to win.

Targeted sanctions is moronic diplomacy. The reality is any sanctions ended up affecting the poorest.

The US embassy has laid out an objective case on the myths of the sanctions matter, with specifics.   If you have an objective response, with specifics, then let's have it. "Sanctions affecting the poorest" is the  standard but vague NGO-speak.

On a matter of logic: one must not assume that because 3 million+ people left during a period of sanctions, it necessarily follows  that their leaving is related to do with sanctions.   That is because:

(a) People do manage to ruin economies even without sanctions and  consequently their people leave.

(b) Following from (a), one would have to start with an argument that the sanctions, rather than economic bungling, are what has turned Zimbabwe into an economic basket case.

(c) In (b), one should include a huge drop in agricultural output, hundreds of millions spent a military adventure in the DRC, etc.

[MOON Ki]

MoonKi

I will leave the other issues to Pundit. I will address one: The Manner in which Mugabe took the land.

I am unclear as to what I am supposed to get from that; I do know the general history.   Is it that Mugabe was justified in acting as he did?   Perhaps he was, and perhaps he was not.   My point, however, is a basic one:  the manner in which he went about it has led to many unhappy consequences for his people, and that ought to be taken into account even as he is lauded for his "heroic" deeds.   

[RV Pundit]

Trust me I can find better things to do than to read US embassy propaganda. Debunking the myth. When did it become a myth. The fact that US has to refute it should tell you something.

The US embassy has laid out an objective case on the myths of the sanctions matter, with specifics.   If you have an objective response, with specifics, then let's have it. "Sanctions affecting the poorest" is the  standard but vague NGO-speak.

On a matter of logic: one must not assume that because 3 million+ people left during a period of sanctions, it necessarily follows  that their leaving is related to do with sanctions.   That is because:

(a) People do manage to ruin economies even without sanctions and  consequently their people leave.

(b) Following from (a), one would have to start with an argument that the sanctions, rather than economic bungling, are what has turned Zimbabwe into an economic basket case.

(c) In (b), one should include a huge drop in agricultural output, hundreds of millions spent a military adventure in the DRC, etc.

[MOON Ki]

Trust me I can find better things to do than to read US embassy propaganda. Debunking the myth. When did it become a myth. The fact that US has to refute it should tell you something.

 

[Omollo]

How did you want Mugabe to get back the land?

I am unclear as to what I am supposed to get from that; I do know the general history.   Is it that Mugabe was justified in acting as he did?   Perhaps he was, and perhaps he was not.   My point, however, is a basic one:  the manner in which he went about it has led to many unhappy consequences for his people, and that ought to be taken into account even as he is lauded for his "heroic" deeds.   

[Omollo]

I would be happy to engage. Please feel free to bring it out for airing.

Sanctions targeted Zimbwaweans and affected them. Whether they intended to target Mugabe and his allies..is irrelevant considering...as you said..they ended up sending 3m folks out as refugees..while Mugabe has won 3 times since then and his wife is set to win.

Targeted sanctions is moronic diplomacy. The reality is any sanctions ended up affecting the poorest.

The US embassy has laid out an objective case on the myths of the sanctions matter, with specifics.   If you have an objective response, with specifics, then let's have it. "Sanctions affecting the poorest" is the  standard but vague NGO-speak.

On a matter of logic: one must not assume that because 3 million+ people left during a period of sanctions, it necessarily follows  that their leaving is related to do with sanctions.   That is because:

(a) People do manage to ruin economies even without sanctions and  consequently their people leave.

(b) Following from (a), one would have to start with an argument that the sanctions, rather than economic bungling, are what has turned Zimbabwe into an economic basket case.

(c) In (b), one should include a huge drop in agricultural output, hundreds of millions spent a military adventure in the DRC, etc.

[MOON Ki]

Trust me I can find better things to do than to read US embassy propaganda. Debunking the myth. When did it become a myth. The fact that US has to refute it should tell you something.

OK, let's stick with the myth. 

By the way, will Hero Bob be thanking the US or railing against the imperialists on this one:

HARARE (Reuters) - Zimbabweans will start exchanging 'quadrillions' of local dollars for a few U.S. dollars next week, as President Robert Mugabe's government discards its virtually worthless national currency, the central bank said on Thursday.
...
The process will legally end the local currency. Zimbabweans have until September to turn in their old bank notes, which some people sell as souvenirs to tourists.

http://news.yahoo.com/currency-dies-zimbabweans-5-175-quadrillion-local-dollars-153844646.html

[RV Pundit]

Thanking them for what. US dollars are global currency. They do not belong to US as soon as it leaves the printing press. They are recognized globally.

You keep saying Mugabe should have done it differently. Ignoring he had done it differently for 20 yrs with little progress (ala RSA NOW) and finally Tony Blaire took away the little hope left.

There were only two options 1) leave some 40,000 whites to own the 60%  of the land forever or 2) forcefully evict them and risk white world sanction working in solidarity with white farmers.

What other options were on the table.

Bob had been dealt two bad cards and he played them deftly...and Zim is still standing. And Mugabe is still PORK, admired and loved by many including yours truly.

OK, let's stick with the myth. 

By the way, will Hero Bob be thanking the US or railing against the imperialists on this one: